The early ones were the best, and for some reason were better rustproofed than later ones. I saw a few 'Y' registered cars many years later with no rust on them.
First new car I owned: ROP 578Y - fortunately it wasn't 'ropey' at all and I sold it after 3 years for only a bit less than I paid, and bought
.........err....another, and another and err.......another.
Recently came across a 'community business' in Birmingham attempting to turn old Metros into kit cars for sale in Jamaica. The council gave them a wedge of cash to attempt this bonkers idea too!
|
For the complete history of the Metro go here.. www.austin-rover.co.uk
After reading it you'd say it was a classic but in reality it isn't.
|
|
|
|
The only mechanical thing the 6R4 had in common with the Metro available on the high st was the name badge.
Err.. how's a name badge mechanical?
|
Of course the Metro was a classic. It was classic BL: shoddy quality at first, never really exploited and no follow up model to keep the customers in the showroom.
Apart from that it was instantly forgettable and a death trap on wheels if you were so unlucky to crash at speed.
Today any left are just a danger to their drivers - imo of course:-)
madf
|
Plenty around on IOW. I know a chap that repairs them..If not known for build quality. is for being cheap to run..as long as it passes MOT they still go on.
>>Today any left are just a danger to their drivers
Would agree with that point
--
Steve
|
Had three new ones during a spell with BSM in the mid eighties. Experiences included a batch delivered with exhaust systems that did not recognise an emergency stop, they carried on down the road on their own while the you sat there wondering what all the noise was.
None of my three survived the first week without breaking down, mostly stupid things like wires and hoses not connected properly, and like all cars at the branch I worked at they had a flattened fag packet under the instrument glass to stop the rattle. Universally hated by all the instructors, you would dread the day you had to have a new car because the current one had most of the teething problems sorted by then and the whole process would have to start all over again.
Easily the worst cars I have ever had anything to do with, and that includes two Marinas which were nearing banger stage when I got them.
|
|
|
|
Apart from that it was instantly forgettable and a death trap on wheels if you were so unlucky to crash at speed. madf
"speed" and "Metro" ? I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
it moved.
|
Oh dear, the poor old metro isn't getting a very good review. I always liked them, particularly the later 1990 onwards Rover Metro with the smooth K series engines and improved hydragas suspension.
There's a pea green W reg one seen ocassionally in the area, looks remarkably tidy for a car over 20 years old.
|
I had a 1983 Y reg 1300 Metro, bought used. Easily the worst built car I've ever owned. The drivers seat fell apart in Week 1. I was forever changing points and condensors on it. It had a constant low pitched scrape coming from one of the cv joints. The front wing rusted through at 3 years (and I mean right through!!). On the plus side, it was a joy to drive, a nice torquey A series and superb handling. I always thought that underneath the shoddy build was a decent car, much like other products from BL of that era, spoilt by appalling quality. It's put me off Rover to this day, probably undeservedly so.
Baz
|
|
|
I always liked them, particularly the later 1990 onwards RoverMetro with the smooth K series engines and improved hydragas suspension.
The press of 1990 seemed to like it:
What Car? magazine, who after testing the Rover Metro 1.1L against such luminaries as the Peugeot 205, FIAT Uno and their then Car of The Year, the Ford Fiesta pronounced an easy victor.
"The New Metro is a quantum leap, and on several accounts. For a start it is light years ahead of its predecessor, far more so than its obvious family resemblance would suggest. But, more important still, it sets new standards of quality, ride and refinement for the class. In its chassis dynamics - ride and handling - it takes on the acknowledged masters of the art, the French, and beats them. It is probably the quietest, smoothest, most refined car this side of £10,000 or even a bit higher.
Drive the Metro, and unless you need more space you wonder if you need anything grander. Our only reservation concerns the fuel economy, which really ought to be better."
This enthusiasm was reflected across the entire UK specialist motoring press; Car magazine drove one on a 15,000-mile marathon and came away with nothing but praise, and Autocar & Motor declared it their new supermini "Hero."
|
Unfortunately the previous Metro which had by then been in production for a decade had such a poor reputation that no improvements on earth could salvage it's reputation. It's first impressions that stay in the mind, and whereas the Mini was held in high esteem long after it had become an outdated antique because of the favovourable impact it made on launch, the reverse was true for the Metro.
Bite the consumers on first approach, and they won't hold their hands out again.
|
The other day, on a 35 mile trip, we were looking out for original Metros - the ones with the raised centre section to the nose - and we didn't see one.
We had a Metro 1.0L many years ago. It was quite good in a primitive sort of way. The Metro enjoyed a brief period of good reputation, before the 'innovative' rustproofing process that was supposed to make them last longer than other cars was shown to be totally ineffective!
My view on is that 'classic car' is a non judgemental term that applies to any model of car after its natural lifespan on the road has passed. Classic status is probably marked by the moment when prices have reached rock bottom and begin to rise again.
I described the Citroen 2CV in unfavourable terms on here recently, but it's an interesting quirk of mass-motoring history and worthy of preservation.
Cheers, Sofa Spud (make mime a 6R4!)
|
|
|
|
The press of 1990 seemed to like it:
1990! That was 14 years ago. Means absolutly nothing to todays cars. Technology, development and the engineering of todays cars is light years ahead of 1990.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm generally a fan of the history of Austin-Rover, BMC, Leyland etc but you have to accept the Metro was even by the standards of it's time, a shockingly poor car.
|
You can judge a classic by these brief signs- imo
1. it had an outsanding visual appeal for the day
2. it had outstanding performance for the day
3. People loved driving and owning one so much they held onto them for 10-12 years from new
4. old ones for sale with few owners are in immaculate condition
5. seeing one of the raod makes you stop and smile/brings back happy memories.
6. it changed automotive design thinking.
7. It was technically advanced.
A Mini falls into several of the above . So does a VW Beetle. Or an Audi quattro Or a Citroen DS
madf
|
|
|
>>Don't misunderstand me, I'm generally a fan of the history of >>Austin-Rover, BMC, Leyland etc but you have to accept the >>Metro was even by the standards of it's time, a shockingly >>poor car.
I still stand by the fact that ours was quite acceptable when newish - we bought it when 2 years old.
The engine was antiquated - dated back to the Austin A30, though improved over the years. But the Ford Fiesta's engine dated back to the Ford Anglia - almost as prehistoric! And the 4-speed gearbox? Most other superminis made do with 4 gears in 1980.
The driving position - now that could have been better. Handling was good, as I remember it and our Metro was quite quiet, though others seemed less so. Build quality and impossibly tight packaging of the mechanical components (e.g.over an hour to tighten up exhaust downpipe bolts!) were the achilles heels of the Metro.
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
|
Ah, Metro build quality, that brings back memories! Every time I cleaned the interior I managed to find a screw or a nut from somewhere. Never could find out where they came from, but after a months use the interior trim produced a sound that The Greatful Dead would have died for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
